Quantum Mechanics lacks an intuitive interpretation, which is the cause of a
generally formalistic approach to its use. This in turn has led to a certain
insensitivity to the actual meaning of many words used in its description and
interpretation. Herein, we analyze carefully the possible mathematical meanings
of those terms used in analysis of EPR's contention, that Quantum Mechanics is
incomplete, as well as Bell's work descendant therefrom. As a result, many
inconsistencies and errors in contemporary discussions of nonlocality, as well
as in Bell's Ansatz with respect to the laws of probability, are identified.
Evading these errors precludes serious conflicts between Quantum Mechanics and
both Special Relativity and Philosophy.Comment: 8&1/2 pages revtex; v2: many corrections, clairifications &
extentions, all small; v3: editorial scru